Replies to This Discussion

That might work for future gun sales but what is circulating out in the black market is probably almost impossible to track down. I can only imagine how many guns are floating out there on the black market since the 50's.

I believe it's another choice that shouldn't be dictated by someone else's morality or idea of what is good for everybody. If you are truly a pro choice person, I think that should include all choices. I personally own a pistol, and have it LOCKED in a gun safe, that needs my fingerprints to open, so I know it's safe. I'm a single mom, and I live with my 13 year old son. I like to feel I have something other than foul language to protect myself with. I know it's not for everyone, but I feel better having it, and feel safe about it because I'm sure it's locked safely away.
I see nothing wrong with owning a gun or a pistol. Law abiding citizens don't do bad things with guns, so laws restricting them, only restrict those that obey the law in the first place. If you were a criminal, which house would you break into? The one that you know doesn't have a pistol because they are illegal, or just across the city limit where you don't know if someone has a pistol or not?
I say a big Rottweiler or Pit Bull would be a better deterrent, but not everyone can have a big dog :(
My opinion, is that it's a choice, but if you are going to own a gun, you should be responsible for it, and if you aren't, I feel there should be consequences. We make people responsible for cars, right?
I'm no fan of gun violence for sure, but I'm also no fan of dictating or legislating morality. Just because bad people do bad things with guns, doesn't mean all of us should do without guns. I don't think that's the answer. It would just be nice if we could evolve to a point where violence was a bad memory though, and guns were things people collected as historical items......

Sadly, though, people can't "take responsibility" once somebody's gun is stolen and a person is dead (or something). It's a little late for responsibility at that point. And what are you going to do? Force gun owners to be registered and make them submit to random inspections by the police to make sure that the guns are locked up safe and sound? If you can't enforce a law requiring gun owners to be responsible, the law is useless.

When you ask which home you'd break into, you make a good point - which is why guns have to be eliminated entirely. The U.K., for example, has virtually no gun violence, at least partially because they're just not accessible. U.S. gun laws fail primarily because they're not consistent and are barely enforced when laws ARE present.

I don't think the comparison to cars is apt, either - the main problem isn't people who are educated and trained, it's the guns that are stolen from them. If it's in a locker, and no one, not even your children can get into it except for you, that may not be a problem - but can you realistically defend yourself against an invader if it's locked up? Or, more to the point, would you be safer with a gun in a locker against an armed assailant than you would be with a taser or pepper spray against an unarmed one?

Finally, this isn't "legislating morality", whatever that means, at least not any more than any other law.

I read all of what you wrote. What about knives, bows, slings, metal pipes, ice picks, axes, swords, etcetera? Just because we ban guns, doesn't mean killing goes away. I'm still going to ask you again, do you really want to entrust your personal safety to the state?

Violence doesn't go away, it's just not as bad without guns as it is with them. I'm just pointing out a fact that in countries with strict, consistent gun laws, there's very little gun crime.

I don't see what you mean about my "trusting" the state or not - it's not a matter of trust, it's a simple matter of statistics. Obviously the government isn't going to be able to prevent all violence before it happens. That's not the question. The question is, "Do consistently-applied, strict gun laws have an impact on gun-related violence?" and the answer is a clear yes.

That's not the real question we should be asking. The question should be, "do consistently applied, strict gun laws reduce violent crime?" If the answer is yes, then I'd see some validity to your argument. However, if the answer is no, you are taking away the law abiding citizens ability to provide safety for themselves. I have a hard time believing that violent crime would go down if we banned guns in the U.S. If you look at the states where they issue CWP's violent crime has actually gone down consistently or hasn't increased. I think if you banned guns in the U.S., violent crime would actually do the opposite, and go up.

All of that aside, our right to bear arms is protected by the constitution. We've already seen enough erosion of the constitution.

I agree with you that violence wouldn't go down - I'm simply pointing out that if there aren't any guns, you can't bring them into fights, and you have no Columbines, it's a hundred times harder to rob a convenience store, etc. Yes, it *can* be done - Britain's gun laws have, at least in part, stopped people from owning guns. Most people (especially your garden-variety nutjob, gangster, or bullied school kid) can't just smuggle something across the border. Trafficking does happen, but that's still a huge hurdle for criminals to get through, one that's too high for the vast majority of them to leap.

As I said, the problem in the USA is that our gun laws are weak, poorly enforced, and scattershot with loopholes. Obviously outlawing guns in NYC isn't going to stop much gun crime if you can just drive to a gun show next county and buy whatever you need - that's why if you're going to have gun laws (which obviously I'm in favor of) you need to do it consistently. Otherwise, the arguments that pro-gun advocates make are pretty much spot-on: you're not preventing crime, and if you're changing anything, it's probably the behavior of law-abiding citizens.

As for the U.S. Constitution, as far as I'm concerned the 2nd amendment should be repealed. It made sense when it was written, but that was 250 years ago and the reasons it was put in there either no longer apply or are moot. It wouldn't be the first time we've edited it, and for that matter the Founders themselves never expected it to last forever - Thomas Jefferson was happy to go on record to say that it should be completely rewritten on a regular basis. So, seeing as how it no longer serves the purpose it was designed for, I think a change is almost a hundred years overdue.

It's part of the Constitution so, yeah, keep 'em. However, I don't see a reason to have them(over say a taser or pepper spray), unless you're a hunter or live in a rural area. We have two guns in my house, they were given to us. They stay unloaded with the ammunition kept separately. I'm far more worried about someone stealing and using them, than I was about my safety before they showed up in my apartment.

There are plenty of places where people get along fine without them. I wouldn't be sad to see purchasing/transport permits contingent upon some sort of safety course/ hunting license.